2021-04-15 07:45

(This reply was part of a conversation on Micro.blog in January 2019. I’m re-posting it here as a matter of storing it on my own server. See also this post, from October 2020. And also this interview.)

The drive to write can be due to the need to express oneself, but I’ve found that over-reliance on “expression” as a motivator plays into the mystical idea that poets are supposed to be “inspired,” which all too often leads to stasis and frustration.

If you wait to be inspired, you’ll be waiting a long time. And when you finally are inspired, you’ll have had no practice, and the product will fall far short of the ideal in your head. No one thinks they can simply be inspired to write a song and, never having played before, just pick up a guitar and boom: a song. So why would writing be any different? Well, I believe it’s because we think we’re practicing all the time, by virtue of using language to, well, talk.

That is, many of us think that writing is the same as talking — and, even more so, that writing is the same as communicating. But poetry isn’t exclusively about communication or expression. (Of course, neither is speech, but that’s a discussion for another time.)

A poem is an event made out of sounds — sounds which just happen to be human language. A writer makes words do things beyond their usual scope, and this takes practice. It also takes a lot of research — that is, reading — to see what other writers have managed to do with words.

If you learn to work the raw materials, you’ll be better prepared for when you are inspired. And you may eventually discover that the joy of working the raw materials is enough.


process writing


Previous post
Joseph Brodsky (via): Pushkin called translators “the post-horses of enlightenment.” If we take this metaphor to its logical conclusion (which is
Next post
poetry mini interview 4 The fourth post in my poetry mini interview is up. In this week’s musical episode, Hal Holbrook — fresh off his Tony award-winning run as the